Notes from Almedalen: sustainability, information vaccines and AI anxiety
My first time in Almedalen is over and I leave with complete inspiration overload as expected. Things have been discussed, reflected on and wondered about, especially regarding sustainability communication, circularity and resilient business models, and with the Swedish textile industry emerging as a frontrunner.
It's good to conclude that the marketing and communication professionals seem to be fairly aligned on the fact that sustainability is not a strong USP for the end consumer and should rather be addressed as a hygiene factor in the overall brand and business structure. If a product is being assessed based on it's sustainability qualities, it is at the very last moment before purchasing, when visibility, desirability and accessibility are already confirmed, and when the practical, emotional or cultural needs are already fulfilled.
And that is good, because although this feels like it should be standard by now, we need to continue to acknowledge that sustainability is not a communication issue, it's a business issue. And to be frank, we can not keep putting the burden of the sustainable transition on the ability of the consumer to collect and interpret information, as well as make good decisions for the overall wellbeing of our societies. Companies need to have better offers, that simply is the better decision.
Sustainability is the foundation, not the pitch.
And it's not only sustainability information people are trying to make sense of. It's everything. Disinformation, filter bubbles and truth skepticism are an ever growing problem that creates political and social divisions. We're talking a lot about the issues this creates, but maybe we should focus more on how we create a society where curiosity, openness and self reflection is the standard for how we take in and interpret our surroundings.
This is where I heard the concept of “information vaccines” as a strategic communication tool to build resilience against misinformation and cognitive manipulation. When I did my own poking around the internet, I realised this metaphor isn't new, but is just a cooler name for inoculation theory, which explains how people are exposed to weakened, watered-down versions of misleading arguments to build resistance before meeting the real thing. Same logic as a vaccine, just for arguments instead of viruses.
This was new to me, and I already feel myself falling into a rabbit hole here. I'm eager to see how this will grow and if we will talk more about the use of information vaccines when it comes to handling misinformation moving forward.
But until then, we're definitely not done talking about AI.
AI can do average, AI can do good enough, but AI can't yet do excellent or genuinely drive innovation and progression forward without the human touch. But the confusion and anxiety around how and when to use AI is stronger than ever and we find ourselves prepared to both defend the use of it and the lack of it in our work at any given moment.
How do we balance and defend the use of AI as a strategic tool as well as protect the humanly created excellence without it being confused for the same thing? I think that's the main question from the AI seminars I attended, and I'm as unsure as anyone.
After all of that big picture thinking, a little stop at Vai Vai Visby ended the week, and I got to remind myself of how geographically big and socially small the Swedish sport and outdoor industry is.
I love it and I miss it!
Until next summer, Gotland!
Comments